In what religion is god flawed?

[JamBar85]

Thanks for that. Very helpful.

I don't know why I didn't just go on wiki myself. lol.

 

[MoonWater]

Thanks for that. Very helpful.

I don't know why I didn't just go on wiki myself. lol.

it's ok, happy to help.

 

[agent_smith]

if your going to claim that someone has a "straw man argument" you need to state why it's a strawman. If your going to state that someone has comitted a fallacy then you need point out what fallacy and where. Any claim you make you need to be able to back up. If you can't, don't, or won't back it up then your argument is worthless.

I said what kind of fallacy you committed. A fallacy fallacy. In other words, claiming "That argument was fallacious, therefore you are wrong" is a fallacy in itself. (Even though I don't feel I DID commit any fallacy in the first place, but who cares...)

As for the straw man argument, you said: "...if a statue doesn't drink milk it doesn't automatically disprove God's existence nor does it automatically disprove the existence of miracles..."
I never claimed to have disproved any God because of the milk thing. All I said was that statues do not drink milk, and if they DID absorb milk then this would happen on any day of the year and not just some magical day - perhaps because the statues are made of a ceramic material. That is logical, not fallacious.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Of course you are a genius adn the closest thing to god too

 

[agent_smith]

Thanks

 

[MoonWater]

I said what kind of fallacy you committed. A fallacy fallacy. In other words, claiming "That argument was fallacious, therefore you are wrong" is a fallacy in itself. (Even though I don't feel I DID commit any fallacy in the first place, but who cares...)

First I did not say your argument was "wrong" I said it was "invalid" there is a difference. Second there is no logical fallacy that goes by the name of a "fallacy fallacy". When one makes an invalid and/or fallacious argument it is well within the rights of others to dismiss said argument as "invalid and therefore pointless". I did claim that your argument was fallacious because you attacked penguino and not penguino's argument. this is a logical fallacy known as an ad hominem.

As for the straw man argument, you said: "...if a statue doesn't drink milk it doesn't automatically disprove God's existence nor does it automatically disprove the existence of miracles..."
I never claimed to have disproved any God because of the milk thing. All I said was that statues do not drink milk, and if they DID absorb milk then this would happen on any day of the year and not just some magical day - perhaps because the statues are made of a ceramic material. That is logical, not fallacious.

However I did not claim that you made such a claim. You seem to have missed the fact that I pointed out the other side as well when I said "if a statue does drink milk it does not prove the existence of God. It only proves that that statue drinks milk." I made this point to show that the issue of whether or not statues drink milk has no place in this particular debate as it has no bearing on God's existence let alone whether or not any religion has a flawed concept of him/her/it/them.

 

[Jistyr]

Bizarre, unfair and illogical? Yes.

Bizzare? It is only bizzare if you are unable to accept the fact that anything may be possible.

Unfair? Everyone gets what they believe in.

Illogical? I don't understand why you say that either. Remember that we never truly know anything, and that the concept of logic can be easily overridden with some philosophies, such as the one suggested.

 

[agent_smith]

First I did not say your argument was "wrong" I said it was "invalid" there is a difference. Second there is no logical fallacy that goes by the name of a "fallacy fallacy". When one makes an invalid and/or fallacious argument it is well within the rights of others to dismiss said argument as "invalid and therefore pointless". I did claim that your argument was fallacious because you attacked penguino and not penguino's argument. this is a logical fallacy known as an ad hominem.

Logical Fallacy: Fallacy Fallacy
You were saying?

And about the ad hominem thing, I was not saying "I'm right because you're lying", I was saying "You're lying".... because he was. What's wrong with that?

However I did not claim that you made such a claim. You seem to have missed the fact that I pointed out the other side as well when I said "if a statue does drink milk it does not prove the existence of God. It only proves that that statue drinks milk." I made this point to show that the issue of whether or not statues drink milk has no place in this particular debate as it has no bearing on God's existence let alone whether or not any religion has a flawed concept of him/her/it/them.

IF the statues were magically all able to drink milk on one specific day, and not any other day, that proves the existence of some kind of supernatural/unknown being/force/whatever. But it never happened.
You also implied that I was claiming statues not drinking milk "disproved" God. I did not make any such claim, therefore you made a straw man argument.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Dont call me a liar, ill say it again, do not call me a liar, find proof i am a liar. Do not call me a bloody liar again.

 

[agent_smith]

Dont call me a liar, ill say it again, do not call me a liar, find proof i am a liar. Do not call me a bloody liar again.

I'll only call you a liar if you lie

 

[Don Penguinoini]

I did not lie, don't call me a liar...

I want him to say that to Jay...

 

[McBell]

But it never happened..

And you know this how?

 

[agent_smith]

Penguino - You are only lying to yourself, not me.
Mesternia - Because I have a brain.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Hmm, must be very small.

 

[McBell]

Mesternia - Because I have a brain.

So what?
Does merely having a brain make you right?
I doubt it.

So once again I have to ask how you know.
Perhaps this time you will actually answer the question instead of merely replying to it?

 

[JamBar85]

Hmm, must be very small.

Hahaha. Burned.

 

[agent_smith]

Perhaps this time you will actually answer the question instead of merely replying to it?

Ok... If I told you the Flying Spaghetti Monster talks to me in private every night, but no one else can see him and I have no proof/evidence at all other than my word... oh, and maybe a random youtube video... would you take me seriously, even for one second? No.

I refuse to accept the possibility of anything superstitious - ESPECIALLY ridiculous claims like this, where God would rather perform this miracle than help a starving African child - until I see something for myself thank you very much.

As for my brain size, firstly you have just done the one thing to me you were accusing me of doing to you, and also for your information I'm a bit of a maths genius, so there :sarcastic

 

[McBell]

Ok... If I told you the Flying Spaghetti Monster talks to me in private every night, but no one else can see him and I have no proof/evidence at all other than my word... oh, and maybe a random youtube video... would you take me seriously, even for one second? No.

Rather presumptuous to give me my answers, don't you think?
Is there anything else you would like to dictate to me?
My beliefs perhaps?

I refuse to accept the possibility of anything superstitious - ESPECIALLY ridiculous claims like this, where God would rather perform this miracle than help a starving African child - until I see something for myself thank you very much.

So basically, what you are saying is that because you do not believe it happened, it could not happen?

As for my brain size, firstly you have just done the one thing to me you were accusing me of doing to you, and also for your information I'm a bit of a maths genius,

One,
I never said a thing about your brain size, so you are barking up the wrong tree here.
Two,
I have not accused you of anything, yet you have put many words in my mouth that I have not spoken.
Three,
It matters not to me what kind of genius you claim to be, actually may be, actually are, etc.

so there :sarcastic

Oh my.
that clinches it then.


And the really sad part is that you have presented nothing to support your accusation that it never happened.
Are you actually going to present something other than your beliefs, or would you rather continue with your tantrum?

 

[Don Penguinoini]

The brain size bit was reffering to me Mes.

 

[MoonWater]

Logical Fallacy: Fallacy Fallacy
You were saying?

My mistake but the websites I found that listed logical fallacies never mentioned this one. Either way it's still a false accusation for I never said that any of your arguments or conclusions were "wrong". I pointed out where you had committed logical fallacies and said that those arguments which had logical fallacies were "INVALID". There is a difference.

And about the ad hominem thing, I was not saying "I'm right because you're lying", I was saying "You're lying".... because he was. What's wrong with that?

You misunderstand: an ad hominem has nothing to do with whether or not your right and he's wrong or vice versa. You called penguino a liar, this is an attack on penguino rather than his argument especially when really your only support for this statement is "because he was". You have no way of knowing what penguino saw and know way of evidencing that he's a liar. You could evidence that he misunderstood and/or misinterpreted what he saw by explaining why it is unlikely that statues don't drink milk and by offering an alternative explanation for what he saw. This would be attacking penguino's argument and thus would not be an ad hominem.

IF the statues were magically all able to drink milk on one specific day, and not any other day, that proves the existence of some kind of supernatural/unknown being/force/whatever. But it never happened.
You also implied that I was claiming statues not drinking milk "disproved" God. I did not make any such claim, therefore you made a straw man argument.

I was not trying to make such an implication. My intent from what I said(recall that I talked about both sides) was to show that the idea of statues drinking milk, whether true or false, has no bearing on the current debate. If the statues were able to drink milk one day of the year it could provide EVIDENCE for something supernatural but not proof. This is because the idea of the supernatural being responsible could be refuted if alternative, plausible, explanations were offered. It also depends on how one defines supernatural. Even if it could be considered proof of something supernatural it doesn't proof or even provide evidence of God nor does it have any bearing on what such a God would be like and/or want. since this debate is about whether or not any religion has a flawed concept of God because the issue of statues drinking milk has no bearing on God.